Why the hell aren't US embassies in hostile countries more secure? Jeez.

Republicans aren't going to call for investigations into a Republican administration, DUH.

Democrats didn't seem to care enough to call for investigations into any of these attacks.

Because there is nothing to "investigate". As a major nation, we maintain diplomatic missions in a lot of dangerous places. It isn't always a safe job - any more than the military is. Our country sometimes is attacked by it's enemies. And as far a "security" - are you under the impression that we can move any amount of military personnel and/or ordnance into other people's countries to protect our embassies? We can't. That's why there were no "investigations". This is being done for political reasons - not because Congress intends or is able to mount any meaningful "investigation" of this matter.Now, maybe we shouldn't maintain diplomatic missions on dangerous places - but that would require a major revamping of our foreign policy, and probably wouldn't be a good idea.And as long as we do, and there are bad people in the world, bad things will happen from time to time.The picture only illustrates the truth - that the current crop of Republicans are only making an issue of this because it happened on Obama's watch, and their faux outrage is faux.

Felgraf:bikerific: It is pretty gutsy to bring up Rice on the offensive like this.

The safe, non-controversial course of action would have been to just quietly not bring Rice up as potential nominee for anything. They knew that bringing her up would provide a venue for attacks regarding Benghazi, and they are are taking it head-on.

I think they are basically daring the republicans to impeach Obama. Heck, they may want the republicans to do it, to try.

I admit I kind of want to see them try, too. Obama would CRUSH them in the media.

Boehner and Co. have to know that an impeachment vote would kill the Republican party forever. They are at least smart enough to realize that elections are won by winning over independents and moderates, and their fringe is too loud, too crass and too racist for the mainstream Republicans to keep quiet. The minute they start talking about impeachment, the rednecks will start posting the following on Facebook: "Finally that N_____ gets his rope" and "We're having an old-fashioned lynching, boys!" and it's over. The idiot brigade becomes the most visible face of the Republican Party and the independents, the moderates, the young and any minorities are digusted with the Right for life.

And, after pandering to those cocksuckers for almost 50 years, I can't think of a political party that deserves that more.

Republicans aren't going to call for investigations into a Republican administration, DUH.

Democrats didn't seem to care enough to call for investigations into any of these attacks.

A better question is, why are all of these questions asked when an embassy or consulate gets attacked, but nobody seems to give a shiat when our soldiers get killed from similar attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan. Apparently people who work for the State Department are sancrosanct, while the people who work for the military are just bullet stoppers.

They are not sacrosanct. Members of our diplomatic corp are well aware that when they are stationed in dangerous places, they can get hurt. They do it anyway, for the same reasons our men and women go to war - to serve our nation, and, if needed, die for it. It is horribly condescending and venal to exploit these heroes deaths for a few petty political points against a President you don't like.

The thing I don't understand about this "Obama lied about Benghazi!" thing is I don't get how the supposed lie helps Obama at all. I mean, as far as I can tell, the insinuation is that the Obama administration lied and said Benghazi was a random act of violence in the midst of widespread protests, when in reality Benghazi was a pre-planned act of violence in the midst of widespread protests.

Uh...so?

Or is the lie supposed to be that these Muslim zealots were upset about a specific video, when in reality these Muslim zealots were just pissed about all the things Muslim zealots are generally pissed about?

I just don't get what the fark these right wingnuts think the motivation for the "conspiracy" was. I don't see what Obama gets out of this either way.

jso2897:Why do Farkers let themselves get trolled by somebody that weak?

Not to worry, I've had him tagged for a while. He pops up every couple of years spouting off the latest Republican talking points. I suspect he's just testing the waters with them and reports their efficacy back to his masters.

freetomato:addy2: BMulligan: freetomato: I wish the has-been shell of a once-decent man that is McCain would just STFU - about everything from now on. Every time I hear him speak I can only think "thanks a bunch for foisting that loathsome hillbilly and her spawn on America, asshole".

I can always tell in threads such as this one who is too young to remember the Keating Five. McCain has always demonstrated rather flexible ethics.

Thank you. I tend to forget that myself.

I freely admit that in '89 I didn't pay attention to politics. I was too worried about the next concert or party. He's been a POS for a long time, I see. I still wish the crotchety, bitter, irrelevant sore loser would just STFU already.

Thud McCain lost me when he rolled over like a puppy for George W. Bush in 2000. For cripes sake, he was born in 1936.Lindsey Graham is just another gay cracker from the Palmetto State, the original crucible of all things assinine, peevish, and butt hurt.Fark 'em both sideways.

jso2897:A Midsummer Night's Toker: Why can't bradkanus provide any actual quotes from when the president lied?

Why do Farkers let themselves get trolled by somebody that weak?

Oh for farks sake, man... give it a rest. Look... we take people at face value until we're certain they're a troll. If they're not trolling and just horribly misinformed, then we might actually help them understand the situation.

Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives," Obama said.

"Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.

rwhamann:Boehner and Co. have to know that an impeachment vote would kill the Republican party forever. They are at least smart enough to realize that elections are won by winning over independents and moderates, and their fringe is too loud, too crass and too racist for the mainstream Republicans to keep quiet.

Boehner doesn't have control over his House. That fringe is leading him around by the short and curlies. I am expecting some noise out of the House about impeachment at some point in the next 4 years. I do agree with you that it will not be beneficial to them.

CynicalLA:crawlspace: So, we're all to believe that O knew absolutely nothing about the Patraeus investigation until now? Sounds legit.

/Hate to interrupt this circlejerk. Please continue.

Does anyone actually believe this would have changed the election?

It would have not changed a thing about the election. People didn't like Romney - this doesn't change that.

Fact is - Obama told the world today he's taking credit for what his employees said in the aftermath of the attack. We now know that Rice lied - for sure 100 percent lied. He asked to own that today, so that's that. I'm farking happy he decided to take the hit. Shows a good side of him I didn't think he had. What he should have done was continue to not answer questions about the attack. He decided to go pick a fight with McCain because he knows that McCain is aiming to damage his future appointment's (Rice) credibility so they can vote her down in the Senate when it comes time. He should not have done that - McCain has nothing to lose and it only gave the story more legs.

The investigations will take up time - that's about it. There is nothing close to an impeachable offense in this fiasco. There is a butt-load of stupid, but no actual crime.

I still think it's odd that those of you who support Obama can not criticize him when he's earned it. I can sure as hell give him a compliment - he did very well today making it clear that common ground will be met on the fiscal cliff and he offered the Senate's solution up as his first offer - good for him.

If you guys are going to try and defend the actions of someone you don't know with your every breath over the next four years - it's going to be a long, long second term for you.

colon_pow:Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives," Obama said.

"Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.

there's your lie, right there.

You have proof that that is *not* happening? At least within the parameters of what can be done while operating in various foreign lands. Or are you just assuming, based on your vast knowledge of Tom Clancy novels, that an unlimited number of Marines and tanks can be stationed at every outpost across the globe?

He gets nothing. But the nutters get a rallying cry, "Benghazi! Benghazi!"

And they'll continue this battle cry as a grounds to distract so they can further obstruct. But hopefully this will play against them just like every other strategy has when they choose to sabotage as oppose to do their job. But please, continue to fark these chickens. Proceed GOP.

More_Like_A_Stain:colon_pow: Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives," Obama said.

"Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.

there's your lie, right there.

You have proof that that is *not* happening? At least within the parameters of what can be done while operating in various foreign lands. Or are you just assuming, based on your vast knowledge of Tom Clancy novels, that an unlimited number of Marines and tanks can be stationed at every outpost across the globe?

no. he implies that he gave orders to do whatever it takes to secure the personnel, if he would have given that order, benghazi would have been crawling with troops within hours.

cogitate on thatwe can continue tomorrow, it's beerthirty out here in the great west.

skepticultist:The thing I don't understand about this "Obama lied about Benghazi!" thing is I don't get how the supposed lie helps Obama at all. I mean, as far as I can tell, the insinuation is that the Obama administration lied and said Benghazi was a random act of violence in the midst of widespread protests, when in reality Benghazi was a pre-planned act of violence in the midst of widespread protests.

Uh...so?

Or is the lie supposed to be that these Muslim zealots were upset about a specific video, when in reality these Muslim zealots were just pissed about all the things Muslim zealots are generally pissed about?

I just don't get what the fark these right wingnuts think the motivation for the "conspiracy" was. I don't see what Obama gets out of this either way.

It proves that he's a secret Muslim, of course. That's an impeachable offense, isn't it? Being willfully, deliberately Muslim? I'm sure it's in the Constitution somewhere- near the back, I think.

freetomato:addy2: BMulligan: freetomato: I wish the has-been shell of a once-decent man that is McCain would just STFU - about everything from now on. Every time I hear him speak I can only think "thanks a bunch for foisting that loathsome hillbilly and her spawn on America, asshole".

I can always tell in threads such as this one who is too young to remember the Keating Five. McCain has always demonstrated rather flexible ethics.

Thank you. I tend to forget that myself.

I freely admit that in '89 I didn't pay attention to politics. I was too worried about the next concert or party. He's been a POS for a long time, I see. I still wish the crotchety, bitter, irrelevant sore loser would just STFU already.

Yeah, and I'd never heard of him till then. so to me all he was was some corrupt old guy. How he got the rep as a straight talking maverick is beyond me.

I alone am best:mrshowrules: bradkanus: if "taking them to the woodshed" means "asking someone to blame me for someone else's mistake and requesting a chat about it" then I've been wrong about that phrase for a while.

I thought the president did a good job of taking the blame instead of shirking it. He simply asked that the critics go after him, not her. I don't see how that is bad for McCain and Graham - they got the president to recognize their shenanigans on national TV bringing more wood to an already raging fire.

Subby obviously didn't watch the press conference.

He told them to shut their cake hole on Benghazzi/Rice. If they do, they were taken to the woodshed. If they don't, he will take them to the woodshed.

Rice: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Rice: "When people ask whether Iraq is a part of the war on terror, well, of course. Not only did Saddam support terrorists, not only was he a weapons of mass destruction threat and all of those things, but he was a tremendous barrier to change in the Middle East."

CynicalLA:This isn't about one-upsmanship. My point was that the people calling this a scandal are only doing it for political reasons. If someone did something illegal then they should be punished. There has been no proof of wrongdoing yet but I'm sure it's coming.

It is absolutely a tu quoque fallacy and irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not consulate security was properly handled. Why can't that be discussed without appealing to the hypocrisy of the Republicans? Nearly every discussion on here devolves into tu quoque arguments with each side questioning the motives of the other and pointing to examples where they've done something similar. Completely useless and counterproductive to have an honest conversation about a situation.

Rice: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Rice: "When people ask whether Iraq is a part of the war on terror, well, of course. Not only did Saddam support terrorists, not only was he a weapons of mass destruction threat and all of those things, but he was a tremendous barrier to change in the Middle East."

[www.realnews247.com image 450x324]

I'm fairly certain that the good Mr. Anus was referring to a different "Rice" addressing the UN.

bradkanus:It's hilarious to see the left defend a guy who is one story #4 about Benghazi and flailing about in his own press conference trying to redirect the nation's attention from his fark up and his staff's fark up.

Be partisan all you want, but the guy lied to YOU. If you're fine with that, great. If not, just admit your jesus isn't perfect and start examining things a little deeper.

bradkanus:vartian: bradkanus: It's hilarious to see the left defend a guy who is one story #4 about Benghazi and flailing about in his own press conference trying to redirect the nation's attention from his fark up and his staff's fark up.

Be partisan all you want, but the guy lied to YOU. If you're fine with that, great. If not, just admit your jesus isn't perfect and start examining things a little deeper.

You are so adorable. *pinches cheeks*

Where have you been? Must have been a tough couple weeks for a conservative living in Washington D.C. Did you see the fireworks?

I work in politics - I don't get excited about who is president. I pretty much only care about the house and senate and I'm butt hurt about the Senate - if you'd like to know.

too many of the morons in here have no idea what the president does and why he is of little importance with the current makeup of the house and senate. Did you not hear him running toward MItt's tax plan for the rich today?

Interesting that all we hear from Bradkanus is crickets in response rufus-t-firefly's carpet bombing. Still shiatting up the thread, which is amazing considering all the whiplash he got from that curb stomping.

Karma Curmudgeon:Corvus: bradkanus: if "taking them to the woodshed" means "asking someone to blame me for someone else's mistake and requesting a chat about it" then I've been wrong about that phrase for a while

Sorry what mistake did she make actually?

"As that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that, as you know, in the wake of the revolution in Libya are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there," she told ABC.

Isn't that what happened?

There was no protest in Benghazi. That's the Republicans big 'gotcha!'.

Sorry, but there were several news stories out of Benghazi saying there was in the days after, including statements made by the Libyan government and from the people attacking the consulate. So, there's that.

Read a lot of Republican hate posts here... All the while thinking 4Americans were killed and the Administration has changed their story 4 times about who did it, who knew about it, what caused it, and who is responsible for it.

tjfly:Read a lot of Republican hate posts here... All the while thinking 4Americans were killed and the Administration has changed their story 4 times about who did it, who knew about it, what caused it, and who is responsible for it.

It's obvious that all the people blaming Ambassador Rice have no idea how politics work. Blaming Rice for 'lying' about Benghazi is akin to getting all stabby with the counter girl when McDonalds sells you a burger with mad cow disease. You can yell and scream, but it isn't her fault, it goes much much higher...save your wrath for this person. The Ambassador just did what Ambassadors have been doing for centuries...just parroting what they are told by their masters. To not realize that betrays a lack of depth in the discussion.